Thread Tools

Just wondering since we lost Branch and are trying to resign both Asante and Graham try to extend some players.
Wouldn't it make sense to give Wilfork and others a extension?
Why wait till their contracts are up?
thoughts?

It's an organizational philosophy not to, though, except in rare cases. Back when Belichick was talking organizational theory while fishing with Jimmy Johnson that was something Johnson recommended. Whether it's good, who knows.

Players to tend to play well in their contract year - there's never a contract year to get out of them if you extend them early.

It's an organizational philosophy not to, though, except in rare cases. Back when Belichick was talking organizational theory while fishing with Jimmy Johnson that was something Johnson recommended. Whether it's good, who knows.

Players to tend to play well in their contract year - there's never a contract year to get out of them if you extend them early.

Click to expand...

I am sure Belichick and Pioli have analyzed this, but I wonder what is the % increase in total spend when you constantly allow players to get to their "contract" year. Maybe there isn't an increase in spending experienced by the Pats at all, since they just let the player walk if their price gets too high. The philosophy could be to keep a portion of the team in their rookie contracts and just turn them over each year as they go through their contract year and let them walk if they have elevated their market value.

If you consistently re-up players early, there should be a fiscal savings, since you aren't allowing the player to have the big year and potentially expand their market value and signing price.

They locked up both Seymour and Brady long term long before their respective contracts were up. The Patriots offered Dieon almost the same exact contract he got from Seattle, execpt that they wanted him to honor the last year of his current contract. What people forget is that Dieon was not a free agent, and he wasn't going to be one for another year. If the player wants free agent money, when he is not a free agnet, what is the benefit to the Patriots to sign him before he is an actual free agent?

Seymour got several raises before his contract was up, and he is one the highest paid players in the NFL, however by signing him early, he did settle for a little less than he would have made in the open market.

WIlfork was the 21st pick in the draft so he has a pretty decent contract. Dieon had a bad rookie deal (his agent's fault, not the patriots). I would be all for signing Vince to a new contract. But again only if he works with them. But you simply can not sign everyone to new contracts, you have to let them play out their rookie deals, it is the only way to manage the salary cap.

Remember the salary cap hell and the dirth of bad contracts (Law, Milloy, Bledsoe) that BB and SP inheritated when they came on. Remember the yearly will they pay Ty his 10 million this year debate? There are none of those contracts anymore. Dillon is due a 4 million roster bonus this year and it will be interesting to see what they do with that. But either way, that money is not going to handicap the team under the salary cap.

I also beleive that the new CBA should change our strategy regarding extensions. Generally, I believe that extensions should now be considered before a player's contract year. Further, I believe that draftees who play well should have their contrcts written as soon as possible, I believe after the first two year of their contract.

There is also the problem of cash over cap which will still effectively limit the number of signing bonuses the Pat's FO is willing to absorb in any given season. They need their re-signings to be staggered rather than grouped, and draft year pretty much sets that schedule in process. There will be exceptions for exceptional players, but those are few and far between. And there is also the matter of unit budgets. There will continue to be turnover because as Pioli tries to remind those of us willing to listen, you simply cannot have more than a handful of players making top ten, let alone top 5 salaries under this model at any given time.

Brady's situation was truly unique as he was entering the final year of a 6th rounders three year deal as superbowl MVP and newly annointed franchise QB. And he agreed to what was truly an incremental deal that had to be revisited after the third ring. And he took deals well below market both times. Deion had the same kind of offers made beginning in 2005, and he passed. And Seymore opened Pandora's box with his camp holdout 2 years early. They compromised to placate him, and he played ball the following year on an extension, but they can't let them all expect that any more than they can expect them all to cooperate.

So while they value them all, they won't allow themselves to loose sight of how each was acquired and they won't over value them as a result. Fans need to appreciate that, but since we never know all that they know it's just not in our nature to.

You would be right, assuming players remain healthy and continue to play up to their capabilities. And that's a pretty huge assumption.

There's been no shortage of players who stop trying once they get a big payday. There's been no shortage of players who become injured and count as dead money on the cap.

Finding an appropriate contract is always about risk/reward for the team and the player - taking into account work ethic and injury history and risk of injury as well. As much as we like to simplify and look at certain positions and skill levels demanding certain salaries, finding the right salary that maintains the right level of incentives for players is an art much more than a science.

At the end of the day taking a one or two year extention that makes perfect sense for the team (as you assert, and indeed as it often does) is not viewed in the best intererst of the player.

The reasons you cite for it making sense for the team are the same reasons it doesn't necessarilly make sense for the player. Rather than accept a 1 or 2 year extension many would rather hit free agency in their prime, test the market, and have the big payday in the competetive market that all players crave.

A lot of players do not want to extend their contracts until the least year of their deal or later. The more years you have left on your deal when you extend, the more you have to take a hometown discount (except for rare exceptions like Seymour).

With the cap jumping exponentially year after year because of the new CBA, many players also feel that a great contract today will suck next year. As crazy as some of the deals were last year, there will be many deals this year that will eclipse them. The player doesn't want to sign an extension for $30 million today to find out he could have gotten the same length contract for $40 million if he waited a year.

Contracts are a two way street. The Pats actively try to extend players all the time before their contract is up (like Koppen this season). They tried to extend Samuel and Branch before him and Givens before him, but sometimes players want to test the open market rather than take a hometown discount.

I think that we are in excellent cap shape and roster shape. We made a 2006 decision to not react to the CBA bubble and give out ridiculous contracts. I presume that our approach will not change in 2007. For those who expect the patriots to pick up 3-5 major free agents, I humby suggest that you RE-READ this paragraph five times!

Perhaps we worked to extend Samuel, Graham and Banta-Cain before the 2006 season. Perhaps not. I suspect that we did. People get pi$$ed when I consider free agents gone. I do that because the decision has really already been 90% made. If a deal could have been made, it would have already been made. The patriots DO NOT win bidding wars for our own free agents.

==================================================
As some discussed before the year started, we understood that this approach could cost us an immediate Super Bowl, but that the approach was sound from a long-range persepctive. We've made our choice and paid the price. Obviously, we could have torn up Branch's contract and paid him $7M (or $8M or $9M) a year, starting in 2006. That would have been wrong, but, personally, in foresight and hindsight, I have no doubt that, barring injuries, that this action could have won us a Super Bowl.

I think that we should be working on the following contracts now, if we can: Warren (08), Colvin (08), Caldwell(07) and Wright (08 after being and ERFA and an RFA). There are no other ciritcal contracts over the next couple of years, other than normal potential attritions and retirements. Warren is an elite player. A Colvin extension would not add to cap cost. The other two will stabilize their units and not cost excessive amounts.

There is also the problem of cash over cap which will still effectively limit the number of signing bonuses the Pat's FO is willing to absorb in any given season. They need their re-signings to be staggered rather than grouped, and draft year pretty much sets that schedule in process. There will be exceptions for exceptional players, but those are few and far between. And there is also the matter of unit budgets. There will continue to be turnover because as Pioli tries to remind those of us willing to listen, you simply cannot have more than a handful of players making top ten, let alone top 5 salaries under this model at any given time.

Brady's situation was truly unique as he was entering the final year of a 6th rounders three year deal as superbowl MVP and newly annointed franchise QB. And he agreed to what was truly an incremental deal that had to be revisited after the third ring. And he took deals well below market both times. Deion had the same kind of offers made beginning in 2005, and he passed. And Seymore opened Pandora's box with his camp holdout 2 years early. They compromised to placate him, and he played ball the following year on an extension, but they can't let them all expect that any more than they can expect them all to cooperate.

So while they value them all, they won't allow themselves to loose sight of how each was acquired and they won't over value them as a result. Fans need to appreciate that, but since we never know all that they know it's just not in our nature to.

Just wondering since we lost Branch and are trying to resign both Asante and Graham try to extend some players.
Wouldn't it make sense to give Wilfork and others a extension?
Why wait till their contracts are up?
thoughts?

Click to expand...

Bad example. Branch's contract wasn't up and we made a great offer to resign him.

This has become one of those extraordinary threads to savor
... where well nigh EVERY post has made made good sense and shed light.

Playing mock GM is one of my favorite parts of football. Thus i've considered the lead question
carefully, over time.
Here's what i have arrived at:

* Over a span of years, most owners spend almost as much on player compensation
as they are allowed to spend. (You there, Bidwell, wake up!)

* Once you get past the Postons, most agents represent their player clients ably.
Thus, player vs. management is a fairly equal contest. While success on the field is not evenly divided
... talent levels are fairly close across all 32 clubs
and the players are paid as if each group of 53 was as good as the next.

* What accounts for the systematic differences in won-lost records?Uncapped spending.
Notably, coaching staffs and scouting operations.
If you have Dante Scarnecchia, for instance, you can get by with lower-rated talent (pace, Matt Light and Logan Mankins)
because the ace coach can "teach up" journeymen OLs.

Bill Belichick can discern patterns from game film that allows him to put rather ordinary DBs
where they need to be to make enough plays.

And, while the rest of the league subcontracts college scouting to BLESTO and that other consortium
... Bob Kraft buys himself (and us!) the services of a full-time corps of scouts
that consistently leads to the Patriots
having one of the best drafts,
year after year.

We cannot often re-sign proven young players before their contract years because their agents know better than to go along with that.
So we let them go while they're still young ...
but replace them with cheaper players - almost as good -
who are still younger ... and cheaper ... and thus let us pay for Brady and Seymour and Colvin and Dillon.